Xiyue Deng <manp...@gmail.com> writes: Git pull, then read along with the reply that follows inline.
>> Xiyue Deng <manp...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> * Drop unused override_dh_auto_test in d/rules (dh_elpa_test is in >>> effect) >> >> override_dh_auto_test: >> @echo Using dh_elpa_test to run tests instead of upstream Makefile >> >> Used to be useful, because the Makefile tests used to run as well as the >> dh_elpa_test ones. Dh_elpa_test was also "in effect then"... >> > > I believe dh_elpa_test disables dh_auto_test by default unless it is > disabled in debian/elpa-test[1]. I think you did this change back in > this commit[2] back in 2019. On the other hand, it looks like > dh_auto_test was disabled by dh-elpa even earlier[3]. Maybe you were > referring to even more back then? Anyway, would be good to figure this > out. Some team members voluntarily accommodate backports and/or oldstable-backports. Write something like "No longer needed" or something to that effect, if it's buildable on bookworm and bullseye. If not buildable, talk to whoever added the B-D. If "Drop unnecessary Build-Depends on markdown" were true than discount shouldn't become a B-D. So there's a major contradiction in your changelog entries and/or thinking. Likewise, in the interest of timeliness I'm fixing this myself. Read the updated changelog carefully and recursively follow any references. Also, consider that if markdown wasn't a B-D we wouldn't have received this RC bug notifying us of markdowns removal, and it's probable no one would have noticed until users complained. That might have been after Trixie's release. If nothing else, the B-D is worth it for that. Why should your colleagues give you the time of day (ie: spend any of their time to review your work) if you systematically refuse to trust their work? Doing security audits would be a better use skepticism/suspicion ;) >>> * Update debian copyright year in d/copyright >> >> -Copyright: 2015-2017 David Bremner <brem...@debian.org> >> +Copyright: 2015-2024 David Bremner <brem...@debian.org> >> >> In terms of copyright, please explain your understanding of copyright >> what you're doing here. This is not a mere 's/17/24/' symbol >> manipulation. >> > > I was thinking about adding myself to copyright, but I remember one of > the early reviews I got (which I forgot from whom) suggested that adding > oneself to copyright list would require significant change to the > debian/ files so I didn't do it and instead extending the copyright year > coverage of the existing entry. Maybe in such case like this one, I > should go over the git history and add all people that had contributed > and also add myself to the list. Wdyt? For upstream, we copy what upstream says, and it's non-authoritative. For debian/*, we are the authority, and it affects all of our downstreams. This means one needs to get it right. Rather than communicating on the level of symbol manipulation, I expect you to write in a way that demonstrates a minimal understanding of copyright and license. Go to #debian-mentors on IRC and ask for reading material, then get back to me about what your proposed change actual means. Key terms: "introduction to copyright free software dfsg Debian packaging maintainers". You did add yourself to copyright, which is fine, but just remember that I expect that your work will evolve from symbol manipulation to understanding. I've added a TODO for you in the changelog. Answer those questions, write a human-authored response rather than machine-talk regurgitation of the git data and I think you'll meet the minimum requirements. >>> Note: this revision drops the dependency on markdown, which is important >>> so that itself and all its reverse dependencies are free from >>> bug#1063645 so that they are free from being removed from testing. >> >> This is premature. Also, does upstream skip functional tests if a >> $PATH/markdown binary cannot be called? If this is the case then the >> correct action is to configure a $PATH/compatible-markdown-replacement. >> > > I checked by a simple grep in tests/markdown-test.el. I had a closer > look just now and it looks like it will consider 3 commands, `markdown', > `pandoc', `markdown_py', and use one that is available[4]. As we already > depends on pandoc, it will use it instead of markdown. That said, it > would be better if we use an alternative markdown implementation to > replace the out-of-date markdown, so I have now used discount to replace > markdown and reworked the Build-Depends list in the source stanza[5], as > well as the Recommends list in binary stanza[6]. Follow the breadcrumb trail that I made more explicit for you. > I have also compared the output with or without markdown and with > discount: > > With markdown dependency: > ,---- > | Ran 543 tests, 540 results as expected, 0 unexpected, 3 skipped (2024-06-11 > 04:04:39+0000, 1.465706 sec) > | 1 expected failures > | > | 3 skipped results: > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/check-word-p > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/remove-overlay > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/yaml-metadata > `---- > > Without markdown dependency: > ,---- > | Ran 543 tests, 540 results as expected, 0 unexpected, 3 skipped (2024-06-11 > 03:56:33+0000, 1.504459 sec) > | 1 expected failures > | > | 3 skipped results: > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/check-word-p > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/remove-overlay > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/yaml-metadata > `---- > > With discount replacing markdown: > ,---- > | Ran 543 tests, 540 results as expected, 0 unexpected, 3 skipped (2024-06-11 > 04:55:59+0000, 1.410098 sec) > | 1 expected failures > | > | 3 skipped results: > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/check-word-p > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/remove-overlay > | SKIPPED test-markdown-flyspell/yaml-metadata > `---- > > So regardless of dropping markdown or adding discount, the test behavior > did not change. I think now with discount replacing markdown it is in a > better state. Really? It looks to me like you proved this: (setq markdown-state 3) (setq without-markdown-state 3) (setq with-discount-state 3) (setq markdown-to-discount-diff 0) (setq markdown-state (/ markdown-state markdown-to-discount-diff)) I know this isn't idiomatically correct, but I want non-LISPers to be able to understand this gentle point. Please resolve this issue by completing the TODO item I put in the changelog. Best, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
